48 comments:

We'll see how that works out for him since they aren't that damn pleased with the way he is doing things themselves. For different reasons of course, but he's certainly not the guy they thought they were electing (a more and more common theme among Obama-voting bloggers I hear).

Plus, they have to pay taxes - some of them anyway - the ones that work - and I imagine KOS has a pretty good health plan and would like to keep it.

Perhaps it's propaganda, perhaps it's providing facts to counterbalance the propaganda purveyed by the mainstream media, by right wing opponents of health care reform, and by the paid shills for the entrenched health care industry, (who also oppose healthcare reform). The nature and quality of their blogging remains to be seen when the bloggers blog, yes?

Robert Cook said... "and by the paid shills for the entrenched health care industry"

Are you talking about Michelle Obama? She was one of those overly paid shills. Would you mind telling me what she did at that hospital? Is there a possibility that employing a person like Michelle Obama at that hospital, or any other hospital, possibily, added to the cost of health care?

If, and when we have health care for everyone, do you really think that those kinds of jobs will disappear for people like Michelle?

"If, and when we have health care for everyone, do you really think that those kinds of jobs will disappear for people like Michelle?"

Or, for that matter, that people like Michelle or the Congress will be forced to use the "health care for everyone?" Hardly, as we already know the Congress is trying to exempt itself from this oh-so-great healthcare reform. The pigs, you see, have moved into Mr. Jones' house.

Bad faith! Didn't you participate in a conference call(s) with John McCain? Why would you assume that a) the bloggers on this call wouldn't ask tough questions or b) report only what the president wants reported?

I think I would like to live in the alternative universe about which Robert Cook writes, since in his universe Obama faces an actually skeptical press and he has not yet co-opted the lobbyists who should be opposing his plans to ruin the health care industry.

"...given that Obama is a war criminal, can you really trust him with the health of you and your family?"

Well, first, he wouldn't be the one in charge of the program, and second, I have no illusions that what we need--single payer, universal health care--will be enacted, particularly given that Obama has not even invited advocates of single payer to participate in his discussions on "health reform." Third, even war criminals and tyrants have at times implemented reforms that have improved aspects of life in their countries.

I liked the headline on Ace of Spades yesterday: "Obama: Hey, Let's Change The Subject And Talk About How Mean Republicans Are"

Because that's counterbalancing with "facts." And that's pretty much what he did... oooo... look how mean Republicans are, they don't want to help YOU they just want to defeat ME, it's not about me, those meanies would hurt YOU to oppose ME.

And then some garbage about how everything except the status quo should be "on the table" as if we're talking about anything "on the table" where it can be discussed or if Republicans who are apparently not suggesting anything whatsoever except the status quo are included in the process of deciding what changes to make it's all rush rush rush and push this through NOW before it gets put off for a time so people can think about it now now now get this through quickly and if you oppose it you're mean and want to destroy families.

Yes, oh yes indeed... Obama is all about *facts* and not about propaganda at all.

So enough of the Obama lies about Republicans. The fact that he needs to deceive people about his own past positions on the topic as well as those of his opponents tells you everything you need to know. If it's so much better than any of the possible alternatives, then why should he fear the truth so much?

"Yes, oh yes indeed... Obama is all about *facts* and not about propaganda at all."

Who's talking about what Obama might say? I'm referring to what the bloggers might present if and when they put forth their arguments. Bloggers who support health care reform are not necessarily in lockstop with Obama and will not necessarily simply repeat his talking points as is.

Robert... any bloggers supporting Obama's health care plans are not going to be discussing the relative merits, the *facts* of his plan and other plans or discussing what is best.

His plan is not up for discussion.

He has a plan.

He doesn't need or want discussion.

He wants it passed and he comes to "the people" to campaign for that plan to get them to put pressure on Congress. That's not about *facts* or convincing people that his plan is the best by showing them how it works best... it's about motivating his supporters to apply pressure.

He's done the same thing before, setting his campaign apparatus in motion with door to door canvasing and asking people (not Congress-persons) to sign pledges to support him.

This, frankly, is beyond creepy.

I've got no problem at all with bloggers taking calls and asking questions and reporting what a politician, even the president, says. But Obama does have this propensity for using this as more than a conduit for information.

You're assuming a priorithat bloggers in contact with (or contacted by) Obama are simply unquestioning supporters of Obama's plan, as is, and they will simply reiterate under their bylines talking points provided by him.

Some of them may be and might do that, but others won't be and won't do that, but until we see what they write, we won't know. As I said, bloggers who support health care reform are not (all) necessarily in lockstep with Obama's plan, and as I also said to begin with, perhaps they'll purvey propaganda, perhaps they'll purvey the facts as they understand them, along with their own opinions on same.

"You're assuming a priorithat bloggers in contact with (or contacted by) Obama are simply unquestioning supporters of Obama's plan, as is, and they will simply reiterate under their bylines talking points provided by him."

Given Obama's M.O. to date, you'd have to provide proof that they weren't before anyone should be expected to believe that they aren't.

Obama has never extended a hand across the aisle. Everyone here remembers his famous "I won" remark. He has no idea how to deal with people who disagree with him, and he has a history of stacking the deck at townhalls, etc. with only his most fervent supporters.

You may assume that those on the call won't necessarily march in lockstep with Obama, but you're the one making the leap of faith here - not the other way around.

How about it, Robert Cook. Do you want to tell me what Michelle did at that hospital. Why would you trust either of the Obamas with health care reform. Was Michelle involved with reform? Michelle appears to be the only one with health care experience, do you trust her judgment?

"You may assume that those on the call won't necessarily march in lockstep with Obama, but you're the one making the leap of faith here - not the other way around."

Here's the interesting thing about actually following links, Jim. You can see for yourself whether the bloggers reporting on that call actually are just parroting. In fact, you can even listen to the call and judge for yourself.

I'm not making any assumptions about what the bloggers might write...I can't and won't know until they publish! It's Ann Althouse and the commenters here who seem sure of what they will do, (i.e., "write propaganda for (Obama)").

"I'm sorry it takes all the fun out of just assuming they will report "propaganda.""

I followed your links, and I have yet to see anything remotely critical of the plan other than to continue arguing that it's not sufficiently single-payer enough.

To argue that implies some sort of "skepticism" is laughable in the extreme. In no instance is any of those people even advocating that anyone vote against it - either because it is fiscally irresponsible or because it doesn't go far enough. There are Democratic members of Congress who are actually talking about that, yet the bloggers you cite aren't even willing to do that. There are varying degrees of skepticism about the tactics, but nothing that would qualify as actual, you know, "skepticism" that would in any way harm passage of the bill.

It's all varying degrees of "Gosh. I really hope ObamaCare passes." Whoa! Hold yourselves back there you harsh critics, would you? How is Obama supposed to govern with that kind of withering dissent within his own ranks. What were they supposed to say "Gosh. I really, really, really, really, really hope ObamaCare passes" before you count it as propaganda?

You're going to have to do much better than that if you're trying to say that these people aren't just repeating propaganda. Minor griping isn't "skepticism," it's acquiescence. You've reached the wrong number. Hang up and try again.

"Who was in Air Force One on that flyby over NYC and what Michelle Obama did at the hospital she worked at are bread butter issues that most Americans think about at the kitchen table."

Wasn't it Obama who was so intent on telling the American people how a president has to be able to multi-task? Are there not enough column inches in the New York Times to tell the American people who was on the flight that scared the hell out of New Yorkers and cost the taxpayers more than a quarter-million dollars? Is blatant corruption by the president not of sufficient public interest to even warrant an article on page A18?

C'mon, garage. Go ahead and justify why the death of Michael Jackson was so ultra-important that the New York Times and CNN had to go wall-to-wall, but that these issues somehow don't warrant even a back-page mention.

Somehow it's impossible to believe that you'd regard these things as unimportant were the name "Bush" instead of "Obama." And you'd laugh in the face of anyone who tried to issue some offhand dismissal by claiming they weren't "bread and butter" issues.